On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Jason Vas Dias
wrote:
> Hi - much thanks for many years of great OpenSSL releases,
> but this 1.1.0 branch, IMHO, should not be put above the 1.0.2k
> release on the website as the 'latest / best OpenSSL release' - this just
> wastes
Thanks for your informative replies!
I hope BIND, OpenSSH et al start using
the 1.1.0 API soon.
RE:
jason.vas.dias> On 20/03/2017, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
jason.vas.dias> > The ed25519 support in openssh doesn't even come from
openssl.
jason.vas.dias> >
jason.vas.dias> What happens
On 21.03.2017 01:13, Jason Vas Dias wrote:
On 20/03/2017, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The latest ntp release is 4.2.8p9 which should just work with
openssl 1.1.0. (I have no idea why they don't list it on their
download page now, or why the development version is so old.)
No, the
Just commenting on this: I had very few problems moving from 1.0.2 to 1.1.0. We'd already cleaned up most of the issues OpenSSL fixed between 1.0.2 and 1.1.0, those fixups were well isolated so migrating was just a matter of ifdef'ing out accessors/allocators/deallocators we'd created to civilize
In message
on Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:13:57 +, Jason Vas Dias
said:
jason.vas.dias> On 20/03/2017, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
jason.vas.dias> > The ed25519 support in openssh doesn't even
On 20/03/2017, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:41:12PM +, Jason Vas Dias wrote:
>> Hi - much thanks for many years of great OpenSSL releases,
>> but this 1.1.0 branch, IMHO, should not be put above the 1.0.2k
>> release on the website as the 'latest / best
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:41:12PM +, Jason Vas Dias wrote:
> Hi - much thanks for many years of great OpenSSL releases,
> but this 1.1.0 branch, IMHO, should not be put above the 1.0.2k
> release on the website as the 'latest / best OpenSSL release' - this just
> wastes everybody's time . No